Month: April 2018

Late April 2018

The U.S. Department of Education gives each State the right to determine what constitutes adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on that State’s final assessment system. Instruction must be rigorous enough to demonstrate “continuous and substantial” yearly progress. High-stakes standardized testing is one measure of school achievement and competency. At the least, the results of this testing can determine whether accommodations have been successful, and services have been effective in preventing a widening achievement gap. At most, results can determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade or graduates. Though high-stakes testing is one measure of academic achievement, it cannot be the only source of data used to determine whether a student has made substantial gains toward AYP. With the weight of these considerations at stake, it is no wonder parents, students, and teachers may feel pressured by the impact of these tests.

The number of students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) served in the general education setting continues to grow. However, these students still lag behind their hearing peers, specifically in language and reading, secondary to the impact of hearing loss. This has made the need for appropriate supports and services by personnel with highly specialized skills and knowledge a critical factor for success. Under IDEA, states must use information about the performance of children with disabilities in state and district-wide assessment programs to revise their State Improvement Plans, as needed, to improve their performance.

Educators cannot wait until the end of year to determine if teaching practices, accommodations, and services have been effective. Progress monitoring is critical.

Disadvantages of High-Stakes Testing for Students with Hearing Loss

Results of high-stakes testing may underestimate a student’s actual skill and abilities. Students who are DHH, especially those included in a general education setting, are often at a disadvantage during high-stakes testing due to their limited knowledge of the language style and structure of the tests. Tests use phrasing, grammar, and syntax that differs from everyday English, often including idioms, multiple meaning words, and complex grammar that is unnecessary to comprehension of text. For a student with an interpreter, the interpreter may account for the student’s language ability and modify communication to assist comprehension. If familiar presentation of the language is not used during high-stakes testing, the consequence is an unfair disadvantage when the testing is presented in written form.

For students who use sign language to communicate, some schools allow only a verbatim interpretation of the test. For a student who receives the accommodation of signed translation for test items and/or questions, the ASL interpreter must now change the communication system to present the test items as they are written.

Students who are DHH being educated in the general education setting are typically the only student in that classroom with hearing loss. The student’s teacher is likely to be unfamiliar with the effects that hearing loss can have on equity of test results in comparison to typically hearing peers.

The U.S. Department of Education gives each State the right to determine what constitutes adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on that State’s final assessment system. Instruction must be rigorous enough to demonstrate “continuous and substantial” yearly progress. High-stakes standardized testing is one measure of school achievement and competency. At the least, the results of this testing can determine whether accommodations have been successful, and services have been effective in preventing a widening achievement gap. At most, results can determine whether a student is promoted to the next grade or graduates. Though high-stakes testing is one measure of academic achievement, it cannot be the only source of data used to determine whether a student has made substantial gains toward AYP. With the weight of these considerations at stake, it is no wonder parents, students, and teachers may feel pressured by the impact of these tests.

The number of students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) served in the general education setting continues to grow. However, these students still lag behind their hearing peers, specifically in language and reading, secondary to the impact of hearing loss. This has made the need for appropriate supports and services by personnel with highly specialized skills and knowledge a critical factor for success. Under IDEA, states must use information about the performance of children with disabilities in state and district-wide assessment programs to revise their State Improvement Plans, as needed, to improve their performance.

Educators cannot wait until the end of year to determine if teaching practices, accommodations, and services have been effective. Progress monitoring is critical.

Disadvantages of High-Stakes Testing for Students with Hearing Loss

Results of high-stakes testing may underestimate a student’s actual skill and abilities. Students who are DHH, especially those included in a general education setting, are often at a disadvantage during high-stakes testing due to their limited knowledge of the language style and structure of the tests. Tests use phrasing, grammar, and syntax that differs from everyday English, often including idioms, multiple meaning words, and complex grammar that is unnecessary to comprehension of text. For a student with an interpreter, the interpreter may account for the student’s language ability and modify communication to assist comprehension. If familiar presentation of the language is not used during high-stakes testing, the consequence is an unfair disadvantage when the testing is presented in written form.

For students who use sign language to communicate, some schools allow only a verbatim interpretation of the test. For a student who receives the accommodation of signed translation for test items and/or questions, the ASL interpreter must now change the communication system to present the test items as they are written.

Students who are DHH being educated in the general education setting are typically the only student in that classroom with hearing loss. The student’s teacher is likely to be unfamiliar with the effects that hearing loss can have on equity of test results in comparison to typically hearing peers.

Is RTI the Same as Progress Monitoring?

Progress monitoring includes forming a baseline for present levels of performance and completing weekly or monthly assessments with a number of tools to verify small incremental gains in student progress. Response to Intervention (RTI) techniques are often used to monitor progress of students who are DHH included in the general education classroom. RTI was originally intended to identify hearing students who have learning disabilities. This type of monitoring includes selection and implementation of “evidence-based tools, with consideration for cultural and linguistic responsiveness and recognition of student strengths.” According to the National Center on Response to Intervention, RTI is a framework for providing comprehensive support to students. It is not an instructional practice. RTI is a prevention-oriented approach linking assessment and instruction that can inform educators’ decisions about how best to teach their students. A goal of RTI is to minimize the risk for long-term negative learning outcomes by responding quickly and efficiently to documented learning or behavioral problems and ensuring appropriate identification of students with disabilities.” Though this type of formative assessment is used by districts, it is not intensive enough, tailored to DHH unique needs, nor can it be applied appropriately, as our students have education issues secondary to access barriers and not learning disorders.

Challenges in Collecting Valid Data on Students with Hearing Loss

Collecting accurate and valid data on students who are deaf or hard of hearing is an ongoing challenge. Educators in the field have struggled with finding, modifying, and “reinventing the wheel” when it comes to assessments that can provide parents, school teams, and administrators with valid information reflecting present levels of performance. Part of the difficulty for educators is that there is no one progress monitoring tool or assessment that is appropriate for all students with hearing loss. Student’s variability in type and degree of hearing loss, age of onset, language exposure, and modes of communication are a few of the variables that can complicate the process of choosing the correct monitoring instrument. In addition, assessment for students with hearing loss is largely misunderstood and assumed to be covered by the typical tests and data collection used with students who have common disability conditions. The type of assessment that is needed is often overlooked in favor of the type of assessment that schools require.Many educators of the deaf and hard of hearing providing itinerant services, are forced to rely on the general education teacher, who is unfamiliar with the unique needs of a student with hearing loss, to collect informal data on a daily or weekly basis.

Common Progress Monitoring Procedures

To intervene with school teams appropriately, educators of the DHH must be attentive to the curriculum being presented to our students in order to plan, accommodate, modify and collaborate to provide tailored instruction prior to valid progress data collection. It is also essential that educators of DHH have a working knowledge of the progress monitoring tools used to assess students’ skills.

Students in early elementary grades are often given formative assessments that test their ability to use phonological knowledge and apply it to the written word. Due to auditory access issues, phonological awareness is frequently delayed. Students who cannot access sound and whose teachers and interpreters are unfamiliar with Visual Phonics as a strategy may make little progress. Even if they are familiar, this strategy may not be implemented intensely or consistently enough to result in true progress. In this case, training may need to be offered to the educational team, a more appropriate monitoring instrument may need to be used. For some students, progress monitoring may need to be overseen by the Teacher of the Deaf. Equally, students who use ASL may not be assessed appropriately with data gathering that includes the phonological aspects of ASL.

Concurrently, many schools use computer-based progress monitoring which depends upon auditory skills to access the information. This may not be appropriate for students who have delays in auditory skill development or minimal auditory access as well as those who use ASL or other manual communication systems. Measuring these skills equitably may (again) require alternate presentation methods such as the use of Visual Phonics. For a student who uses ASL, Gallaudet University has developed ASL Assessment Toolkits that measure ASL phonological awareness and receptive skills (insert link here).

Are Standardized Test Scores Enough as a Measure of Achievement?

No, high-stakes test results are an insufficient measure of achievement. Without additional data, standardized testing results have limited meaning, and provide little insight for planning instruction. When preparing for end of the year meetings with other teachers, parents, and professionals, it is essential to use data from additional sources as well as the data retrieved from high-stakes testing. IDEA mandates that other sources as well as high-stakes testing be considered when evaluating yearly student progress.

What Additional Data Should be Gathered?

Progress data on standards-based goals and objectives (criterion)

Progress data on curriculum-based measures (CBM) that have been administered equitably

With the amount of collaboration necessary among a child’s educational team, collecting data on students who are DHH is no small task. Teachers who provide services via the itinerant model and classroom teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing rarely have the time in their schedules required to do all that is needed to support good student outcomes (e.g., teach to the unique needs of students, consult enough with the school staff to accommodate or modify to meet student needs, and gather relevant and valid progress monitoring data). Therefore, relationships with school staff are a critical component of this data gathering process. It is often the responsibility of the teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing to establish relationships with campus administrators, general education teachers, and other service providers to effectively collaboration in data gathering.

The challenges presented touch only the surface of the issues with high-stakes testing and continuous monitoring of our students who are DHH. As long as high-stakes test results continue to be used as a primary gauge of adequate yearly progress, educators must be cognizant of the demands it places on students with hearing loss. It is critical to ensure that the progress monitoring tools being used are the most valid (appropriately matched) and accurate measure of student skill.

References

Test equity for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. (2008). PePNet Test Equity Summit. Retrieved from http://resources.pepnet.org/files/356_2010_2_1_16_35_PM.pdf.; Cawton, S., & Leppo, R. (2013). Assessment accommodations on tests of academic achievement for students who are deaf or hard of hearing: A qualitative meta-analysis of the research literature. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 363-376.

About the Author: Brenda Wellen has been a teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing in center-based and itinerant settings for 28 years. She recently completed a graduate degree in Deaf Education and Reading Specialist certification.

Early April 2018

The ‘bread and butter’ of itinerant support to students with hearing loss is often considered to be ensuring communication access, supporting language development, and self-advocacy skills training. While access relates to ADA requirements, and supporting language is linked to academics, training in self-advocacy is too often considered to be non-academic and therefore not necessary. One thing we know for sure about our students is that they will miss or misunderstand more communication than their peers. This is the basis for ongoing language and vocabulary issues and underlies the need for self-advocacy. Access and teacher accommodations cannot close all ongoing speech perception or communication gaps. It truly is necessary to teach self-advocacy skills to enable students to fully participate in the classroom and act appropriately when they know they have not fully received or understood information.

If a student who was low vision was continually knocking into people, desks, and classroom walls due to the inability to clearly see everything, a vision specialist would likely be called in to assist the student in developing appropriate orientation and mobility skills. A student with hearing loss often incompletely hears, misses spoken information, or misunderstands what is said. Self-Advocacy training is to a student with hearing loss what orientation and mobility training is to a student with visual impairment.

Students do not know what they didn’t hear because they didn’t hear it – yet they are often held accountable for receiving and fully understanding this information. Full participation in the classroom requires that a student recognize when a communication breakdown occurs, and self-advocate for their listening and learning needs. Students who are deaf or hard of hearing must have the knowledge and skills to access accommodations and support in any setting and as an integral part of an independent adulthood. Ideally, students would have instruction in self-advocacy from preschool through grade 4 (about age 10). As they reach the tween and teen years, focus should change on supporting the student’s ability to problem-solve communication issues as part of their self-determination of future goals.

The Power of an Appropriate Program of Special Education Support

The special education pendulum has swung away from segregated settings where students with special needs minimally mixed with ‘regular’ students in the 1980s to the current full inclusion model, where direct 1:1 instructional services are becoming rare. Students with hearing loss are already at high risk for ‘academic slippage’ due to their inability to completely access classroom communication without appropriate accommodations and supports. The move from pull-out services to provide intensive teaching in reading, language, and self-advocacy, places our students at even higher risk for developing increasing academic delays over time.

In light of this, I found a court case from 2002 that gave me pause, and hope. In Kevin T. V. Elmhurst Comm. School District No. 205 Kevin, who had a learning disability and ADHD, had received twelve years of special education (age 6-18). Kevin had average intellectual potential but his reading, math and writing skills were at the 3rd to 5th grade levels despite receiving special education services. Triennial assessments over 9 years showed that his IQ dropped nearly 20 points. Scores on academic achievement tests also decreased significantly over a 6-year period. The school was aware of his poor reading scores but did not make IEP changes to address his reading difficulties. It was stated multiple times that he should have been assessed for, and given, assistive technology (AT), but the district did not consider, let alone provide Kevin, with AT. Modifications or accommodations during state testing procedures were not included on his IEP. Although Kevin’s skills were deficient, at the end of his 12th grade year while receiving all Fs, he graduated with a high school diploma. Per this court decision, “Automatic grade promotion does not necessarily mean that the disabled child received a FAPE or is required to be graduated.”

At the urging of the parents, the district transferred Kevin to a specialized day school where he received intensive instruction. In one year, Kevin made about 3 years of progress in reading, math, and writing. His parents then decided to bring the case to court. The court ruled that Kevin receive compensatory education. The school district was required to reimburse the parents for tuition paid to the specialized school and for his continued education at the school.

Where is the Silver Lining in this Case?

First, schools can and should be held accountable when students with disabilities are not making sufficient progress. Indeed, the March 22, 2017 US Supreme Court decision rejected the standard of minimal progress. For children fully integrated in the regular classroom, the IEP should be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.

Second, a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities includes specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the child. Present levels of performance and continuous performance monitoring are critical elements for determining student needs, and also identifying if the specially designed instruction is truly meeting the needs of the child. Children who display hearing loss as their only disability do not have a learning disorder. Issues in education are related directly to the access barriers caused by the hearing loss. These barriers must be accommodated per ADA and an IEP be suitably designed to close the existing gaps in learning and support the student’s ability to keep pace in the classroom.

Third, intensive instruction by persons who truly understand the unique learning needs of the specific disability is likely to result in substantial progress to close achievement gaps. If our students are 1+ years delayed in their achievement, it is unlikely that they will close this gap nor keep up with the current pace of learning UNLESS an appropriately intense program of specialized instruction – by a teacher of the deaf/hard of hearing – supports this progress.

Services need to be appropriate if a child with hearing loss is to receive FAPE.

Appropriate:

Accommodations to optimize access to school communication

Assessment to identify the learning needs unique to students with hearing loss

Intensity of specialized instruction tailored to meet these unique needs by a knowledgeable teacher with specialty in working with students with hearing loss

The ‘bread and butter’ of itinerant support to students with hearing loss is often considered to be ensuring communication access, supporting language development, and self-advocacy skills training. While access relates to ADA requirements, and supporting language is linked to academics, training in self-advocacy is too often considered to be non-academic and therefore not necessary. One thing we know for sure about our students is that they will miss or misunderstand more communication than their peers. This is the basis for ongoing language and vocabulary issues and underlies the need for self-advocacy. Access and teacher accommodations cannot close all ongoing speech perception or communication gaps. It truly is necessary to teach self-advocacy skills to enable students to fully participate in the classroom and act appropriately when they know they have not fully received or understood information.

If a student who was low vision was continually knocking into people, desks, and classroom walls due to the inability to clearly see everything, a vision specialist would likely be called in to assist the student in developing appropriate orientation and mobility skills. A student with hearing loss often incompletely hears, misses spoken information, or misunderstands what is said. Self-Advocacy training is to a student with hearing loss what orientation and mobility training is to a student with visual impairment.

Students do not know what they didn’t hear because they didn’t hear it – yet they are often held accountable for receiving and fully understanding this information. Full participation in the classroom requires that a student recognize when a communication breakdown occurs, and self-advocate for their listening and learning needs. Students who are deaf or hard of hearing must have the knowledge and skills to access accommodations and support in any setting and as an integral part of an independent adulthood. Ideally, students would have instruction in self-advocacy from preschool through grade 4 (about age 10). As they reach the tween and teen years, focus should change on supporting the student’s ability to problem-solve communication issues as part of their self-determination of future goals.

Components of Self-Advocacy

Following are basic questions that students with hearing loss typically require instruction in so that they can understand their hearing needs and respond appropriately.

Self-Advocacy

1. What does it mean to have a hearing loss?

2. Why do I have problems understanding (relate to hearing loss and language issues)?

3. How does my hearing loss affect me (school, socially)?

4. When do I have problems understanding what people say?

5. How important are my hearing devices?

6. How do I know when my hearing devices are not working?

7. What should I do when they are not working?

8. What can I do when I know I have not heard what was said (specific self-advocacy & communication repair strategies)?

Self-Determination

9. How much am I willing to have the hearing loss impact how well I do in school (planning/future goals)?

10. When is it critical for me to disclose my hearing loss (problem solving)?

11. What are my legal rights to access, supports, and services?

From the Office of Civil Rights

We need to encourage students to understand their disability.

They need to know the functional limitations that result from their disability.

Understand their strengths and weaknesses. Be able to explain their disability to others.

Be able to explain their difficulties in the past, and what has helped them overcome such problems.

This should include specific adjustments or strategies that might work in specific situations.

They must practice explaining their disability, as well as why they need certain accommodations, supports, or services.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Transition of Students With Disabilities to Postsecondary Education: A Guide for High School Educators, Washington, D.C., 2007

He Does Not Know What He Did Not Hear

This reality underlies the requirement to teach self-advocacy, specifically teaching the student about what he does hear, does not hear and under what conditions, and how to use situational awareness to recognize when he likely missed information. Some knowledge of hearing loss teaching and assessment resources:

Success in the general education setting requires an ongoing instruction program in self-advocacy skills needs, including hearing aid independence, to be a part of the services provided to students with hearing loss as part of their IEP or 504 Plan.